July 25, 1878. ] JOURNAL OF HORTICULTURE AND COTTAGE GARDENER. 61 
ee 
WEEKLY CALENDAR. 
Da; Da: Average 
hee JULY 25—31, 1878, Temperature near | Sun | Sun | Moon | Moon | Moon’s| {ice | Day 
Month Week London. Rises Sets Rises. Sets Age. ‘Suns. |ear! 
Day. |Night.)Mean.| h. m.| h. m.| h. m.| h. m.! Days, | m. s. 
25 TH 3 ‘ 75.0 | 50.6 | 62.8 4 13 7 57) 11 54 4 45 20 6 15 | 206 
26 | F Society of Arts (Anniversary) at4.P.M. 73.8 | 494 | 61.6 4 16 7 56 | morn. 5 48 26 6 16 | 207 
27 s Quecket. Microscopical Club (Anniversary) at 8 P.M. | 73.5 | 50.6 | 62.0 4 18 7 54 0 49 6 40 27 6 15 | 208 
28 | SUN | 6 SUNDAY AFTER TRINITY. 74.6 | 51.3 | 62.9 CLA oe ER id 0) O80) | My peat 28 6 15 | 209 
29 M 4 76.2 514 | 63.8 4 21 77°52 3): 22 7 46 (eo) 6 13} 210 
30 Tu Hinckley Show. 75.8 | 50.8 | 63.3 4; 22 7 50 4 51 Shi 47 1 6 11} 211 
31 W Weston-super-Mare Show. 75.1 | 50.4 | 62.7 4 24 7 48 6 20 8 25 2 6 9.},212 
From observations taken near London during forty-three years, the average day temperature of the week is 74.9°; and its night temperature 
JUDGING AT EXHIBITIONS. 
<Q) ROM time to time the advantages of the 
[7 system of judging and awarding the prizes 
v at the great London horticultural exhibitions 
} have been pointed out, and the corresponding 
disadvantages of the modes adopted at some 
St local shows have been incidentally alluded to. 
The two systems in operation may be 
broadly deseribed as.open judging and blindfold 
judging. The one is founded on the principle 
dictated by the petty and paltry jealousies of local 
exhibitors. In theory there can be no question as to 
which of the two principles is the better ; and in practice, 
at least in regard to great shows of a general character, the 
principle based on a virtue instead of the one founded on 
something of a very different character, gives by far the 
greater amount of general satisfaction. The one mode is 
circumlocutory, cumbersome, slow in being carried out, and 
not infrequently results in inaccuracies ; the other is simple 
in its nature, essentially expeditious in its operation, is 
seldom attended by mistakes, and scarcely ever gives cause 
for complaint by any who are in any way connected with 
the exhibition. 
Never, perhaps, were the faults of the blindfold system 
of judging more apparent than at the great Show at Preston. 
The manner in which the prizes were affixed and the gene- 
ral administration of this department of the Exhibition 
constituted the greatest blot of the Show. The way in 
which the officials were worked and the general muddle in 
which they were involved evoked the sympathies of those 
to whom the work would have been easy had it been con- 
ducted on the usual system adopted by the Royal Horti- 
cultural Society. When the Society holds its next provincial 
Exhibition it is earnestly to be hoped that the duties in the 
department alluded to will be administered by the Society’s 
Officials, and that the common-sense system usually in 
operation will not be departed from in favour of one 
dictated by local fancies, prejudices, or jealousies, and 
which is altogether inferior. 
The system adopted at Preston was rude in comparison 
with the plan that it was permitted to supplant. It may 
be well to contrast the two systems and their working. 
At the London shows, as noticed by “ Exurpiror” on 
page 50, every exhibitor’s name and full address is plainly 
written on a card, on which is also printed the class, number, 
and designation of the exhibit. These cards are placed on 
¥, of trusting to the honour of judges, the other is | 
| Society, the National Pelargonium Society, the National 
| Auricula Society, the National Carnation and Picotee So- 
the several collections before the judges commence their 
duties, the cards being simply turned face downwards, and 
on the back of each is written the class and exhibitor’s 
numbers, which are all the judges care to see or do see. 
The awards are made to the numbers, and an official in 
attendance on each set of judges is provided with a supply 
of boldly-printed “first prize,” “second prize,’ “ third 
prize,” and ‘‘extra prize” slips (“highly commended” and 
“commended” slips being also in readiness if required), 
which he places on the successful exhibits, at the same 
time turning the cards, and the work is done. There can | 
No. 904,—VOL, XXXV., NEW SERIES: 
be no delay nor error where this plan is adopted. The 
judging and affixing of the prize cards are done -simultane- 
ously, the reporters can discharge their duties correctly and 
expeditiously—which is not of less importance to the general 
public than to the Society—and all is in readiness for the 
visitors, who can see just what they desire to see the moment 
they enter the show. 
That is the open, judge-trusting, common-sense system 
of procedure which works so smoothly and so well at all 
London exhibitions of the Royal Horticultural Society, the 
Royal Botanic Society, the plant and fruit shows of the 
Crystal Palace Company, the shows of the National Rose 
ciety, and at many suburban exhibitions. London exhibitors 
and critics are as keen as most people, but a complaint is 
practically unheard of in connection with the awards at the 
shows referred to. 
The blindfold system as adopted at Preston was worked 
as follows :—Exhibitors’ numbers and class numbers were 
alone placed on the cards before the Judges. The awards 
were made and attendants conveyed the slips to the 
office. The names of the successful exhibitors were then 
searched for, three or four officials clustering round one 
book, and then having to refer to other books for gardeners’ 
names, addresses, &c. The names were then written on the 
prize cards. Another body of assistants then conveyed the 
cards back to the Show, and after some trouble—often 
considerable in finding their places—aftixed them to the 
exhibits. But after all the time occupied and all the labour 
expended no addresses were written on the cards, and not 
always the name of the gardener; while in other instances 
the name of the gardener was given with the honour of 
““ Esq.” attached, the name of the owner of the collections 
being omitted. Yet with all these imperfections three 
hours or more elapsed before all the awards were affixed ; 
whereas by the London system the work is done in two 
minutes. The faults alluded to—for faults they are—per- 
tain wholly to the system and not to the officials who carried 
it out. No body of men could have worked harder than 
did those engaged in this department at Preston, and if 
they had been under a less cool head than that of Mr 
Moore the work would not have been executed so well as 
it was. 
The object, it is presumed, of blindfold judging is to 
remove any cause of mistrust that might arise lest the 
judges should favour any particular exhibitor. It is simply 
absurd to suppose that any judges having a reputation at 
stake would do other than judge justly; but even if they 
were disposed to act otherwise, the numbering system would 
not only not prevent their doing so but would assist them ; 
and for this reason, that they know by the plants, &c., 
whose collections they are judging, so that in point of fact 
the numbering system is all a farce. When the exhibitors’ 
names are placed with the collections, although the judges 
do not see them, nor want to see them, that is the best 
_possible security that can be devised that everything will 
be judged strictly on its merits. If the judges did other- 
wise they would simply haye no defence; but if they 
é NO. 1556.—VOL, LX., OLD SERIES. 
